New Mars Forums

Official discussion forum of The Mars Society and MarsNews.com

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Announcement: As a reader of NewMars forum, we have opportunities for you to assist with technical discussions in several initiatives underway. NewMars needs volunteers with appropriate education, skills, talent, motivation and generosity of spirit as a highly valued member. Write to newmarsmember * gmail.com to tell us about your ability's to help contribute to NewMars and become a registered member.

#76 2015-10-28 11:10:35

RobertDyck
Moderator
From: Winnipeg, Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 6,380
Website

Re: Primary space politics

From another discussion thread. One that had nothing to do with politics.

Tom Kalbfus wrote:
RobertDyck wrote:

Any plans that require more than one presidential mandate, will never happen.

Aren't you forgetting about President Ford?

What about Jimmy Carter, why didn't he restart the Apollo Program? He had a majority of Democrats in Congress, and he himself was of the same party as John F. Kennedy, so if the Democrats were so pro space, why didn't they restart the Apollo Program when they got back into power in 1977?

I'm not saying Democrats are pro-space. I'm saying each president cancels the project of the previous president. We're lucky Johnson didn't cancel Apollo. That was partly because America was so gung-ho about space at the time, partly because the Soviets were ahead in space so Apollo was a means to demonstrate technological leadership, partly because no one want to destroy the legacy of the "Camelot" president who was assassinated, and partly because he was of the same party. Frankly, I'm expecting ARM will be cancelled by the next president, whoever it may be. Regardless of whether it's Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, or some actual credible Republican. The question is whether they have a plan for anything in space. And whether their plan can be completed before the end of their tenure, and the next president cancels that. I suggest you ask them.

The Mars Society is organizing this year's Congressional Blitz: Be a True Space Advocate!

Offline

#77 2015-10-28 12:12:15

Tom Kalbfus
Banned
Registered: 2006-08-16
Posts: 4,401

Re: Primary space politics

th?id=A6548ea751bedceb5bb1bb234b2156ee7&w=120&h=120&c=7&rs=1&qlt=80&pcl=f9f9f9&cdv=1&pid=16.2
Jeb Bush: Governor of Florida - probably as pro-space as George W. Bush was.
th?id=Ad2057ab87092319a96b6c2c3519a3d05&w=120&h=120&c=7&rs=1&qlt=80&pcl=f9f9f9&cdv=1&pid=16.2
Ben Carson: a brain surgeon, would he be pro-space?
th?id=A97df2eaed1b6bd43da6a7b00ec231acc&w=120&h=120&c=7&rs=1&qlt=80&pcl=f9f9f9&cdv=1&pid=16.2
Chris Christie?
th?id=A0ece1cac2a957687936d788bd392299c&w=120&h=120&c=7&rs=1&qlt=80&pcl=f9f9f9&cdv=1&pid=16.2
Ted Cruz: Senator for Texas, major NASA installation there, is head of the Space Subcommitee, he might push a pro-space agenda
th?id=Aa8930cf8843b0de8f1db86a592ffb1b4&w=120&h=120&c=7&rs=1&qlt=80&pcl=f9f9f9&cdv=1&pid=16.2
Carly Fiorina: Former CEO of HP, perhaps.
th?id=Aebc21ea279773f78f9e2763109fe8d56&w=120&h=120&c=7&rs=1&qlt=80&pcl=f9f9f9&cdv=1&pid=16.2
Jim Gilmore:?
th?id=Afb084713b3b4fdfb7989a1d19e616de3&w=120&h=120&c=7&rs=1&qlt=80&pcl=f9f9f9&cdv=1&pid=16.2
Marco Rubio: A Florida Senator, The Kennedy Launch center is located in Florida.
th?id=A8c180336aa0a19e653b5ebdcf7cc66c1&w=120&h=120&c=7&rs=1&qlt=80&pcl=f9f9f9&cdv=1&pid=16.2
Donald Trump: Hard to say, maybe his big ego would drive him to do something in Space or perhaps not.

Offline

#78 2015-10-29 07:01:13

Tom Kalbfus
Banned
Registered: 2006-08-16
Posts: 4,401

Re: Primary space politics

GW Johnson wrote:

It's not about party.  It's about who's an enthusiast in a position of power,  and it's about the politics-of-money. 

JFK wasn't so much a space enthusiast,  but his VP LBJ was.  JFK was looking for a public demo of US superiority,  and his VP suggested turning our lag in LEO space into a lead by going to the moon.  It was all for propaganda value,  which is why Apollo was mostly just a flags-and-footprints stunt.  That's what JFK was after:  a cold war propaganda coup. 

LBJ succeeded JFK,  and used the power of his presidency to continue the moon program for eight solid years,  giving it the momentum to succeed.  Nixon couldn't stop it entirely,  but he did kill it prematurely.  No president since has been a space enthusiast,  and it kinda shows,  don't it?  It demonstrably has nothing to do with political parties:  none of the succeeding presidents were space enthusiasts,  Democrat or Republican.  Period.

As for politics-of-money,  that's the driving force for the conversion of a 1961-vintage space program into corporate welfare for "old big space" today.  Without Musk's billions,  Spacex would never have had a chance to break into the game,  and the deck is still partly stacked against them.  All that matters now is to keep shuttle-era businesses alive in important congressional districts,  doing the same things they did for shuttle,  with a bit of admixture from Apollo.  That is the only reason that there is an SLS/Orion,  resurrected from the previous welfare program Ares/Orion (Constellation).  It's not about going anywhere or doing anything.  Hasn't been for decades.  Not since Apollo was cancelled in 1972.

Until that political evil (the corporate welfare state) is ended,  there will be no real NASA manned mission to Mars.  Doing a super-expensive trip to Mars without actually landing is the way they intend to kill it as a doable mission for the rest of the century,  and just concentrate on giant corporate welfare. 

The corporate welfare state of which I speak goes far beyond NASA.  It started out as the "military-industrial complex" that Eisenhower warned about,  of which the space program was then a tiny piece.  This shows up in the perpetual wars we have been fighting.  Nothing is so profitable as war for the weapons industry,  and you don't have to win to profit from it.  Anybody else notice that pattern?  It has since spread into energy and banking,  and far more.  In it,  government's sole remaining function is to pick the people's pockets to keep the giants-that-own-government rich.

You want men on Mars?  Find a way to break that corporate welfare state.  Otherwise they will find a way to block or sabotage any private efforts to send men there.  Dennis Tito's flyby mission was destroyed when he gave it NASA for lack of money.  Giant Boeing gets to buy Russian rocket engines that work,  small fry Orbital Sciences doesn't.  So,  Orbital and ATK combine as a better chance to join the club of giants.  There's a real pattern here.

GW

I got a vision of the President of Boeing on the run from the Gestapo because America lost World War II while Boeing profited tremendously. There is a limit to how long this game can be played. Imagine the Wright Brothers trying to turn their airplane into a corporate welfare project!

Offline

#79 2015-10-29 15:49:53

GW Johnson
Member
From: McGregor, Texas USA
Registered: 2011-12-04
Posts: 4,246
Website

Re: Primary space politics

America losing WW2 was a very real possibility at the time.  Especially before about the time of the battle of Stalingrad.  Certainly before 1943.  All of that is a matter of historical fact.  By the second half of 1944,  it was pretty clear to both sides (except to Hitler) that the outcome in Europe was pre-ordained to be an Allied victory.  The only question remaining was how long,  and how many dead,  to get that job done.  We now know that answer.

In the Pacific,  without the atom bomb,  the same sort of planning and assessment indicated a war ending in late 1947 or early 1948,  with over a million additional US dead,  and multiple-millions of additional Japanese dead.  The homeland invasion was scheduled for spring 1947.  Not 1946!!!

With the atom bomb,  both the schedule and the additional dead on both sides got cut a lot shorter.  But,  the "common wisdom" to the contrary,  it still wouldn't have worked without the Russians declaring war on Japan right after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atom bombings.  The Japanese were counting on the Russians as mediators,  not adversaries.  Plus,  we let them keep their precious emperor.

Losing 100,000+ at Hiroshima did not persuade them.  Neither did losing another 60,000+ at Nagasaki.  Not until the Russians declared war upon them,  too,  did they surrender.  The fear was losing the emperor,  not the civilians.  These are also matters of historical fact,  including testimony after the war from high-ranking Japanese officers. 

Boeing-the-corporation would have come out OK regardless of who won WW2.  Who is/was CEO and what happens/happened to him is irrelevant to that outcome.  That knowledge that who wins is actually irrelevant to the profit picture long-term,  is what led to the "military industrial complex" of the late 1950's,  and to the modern giant-corporate-welfare-state today. 

What the US shared very closely with Nazi Germany is the entire concept of corporations-as-people under the law.  This concept takes no account of (1) corporations live forever,  people do not,  and (2) corporations hacked apart by the courts can reassemble,  people cannot.  That has ZERO implications for all other concepts and comparisons between us and the Nazis,  but it is something we both believed in,  going into the conflict.  The US still does today.  I'd like to see that changed,  it is a demonstrable evil.

As for the Wright brothers,  that was pre-WW1.  That was a different time.  The government RFP they responded to was one 8.5 x 11 page,  one-sided.  Their winning proposal was one 8.5 x 11 page,  one-sided.  The date was 1909.  All of that is a matter of simple historical fact.  It long predates the corporate welfare state that I so despise,  by some 5 decades. 

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2015-10-29 15:58:50)


GW Johnson
McGregor,  Texas

"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew,  especially one dead from a bad management decision"

Offline

#80 2015-10-30 18:08:32

Tom Kalbfus
Banned
Registered: 2006-08-16
Posts: 4,401

Re: Primary space politics

You ever hear of Professor Langley?
46-2.jpg
This was Professor Samuel Langley's Flying Machine
langley-s.jpg
It was powered by a steam engine, and Samuel Langley was one of the competitors to the Wright Brothers. Unlike the Wright Brothers, Samuel Langley had an enormous budget, he spend a lot of money trying to develop his flying machine, and what do you think were the results of all of this experimentation?
langley-aerodrome.jpg
Here is a picture of Samuel Langley's flying machine in its historic test flight, what do you notice about this picture? Does this look right to you? This airplane had a very short flight, and its pilot got wet!

Offline

#81 2015-10-31 10:19:25

GW Johnson
Member
From: McGregor, Texas USA
Registered: 2011-12-04
Posts: 4,246
Website

Re: Primary space politics

Langley did not understand weight-and-balance,  nor did he understand aerodynamical control.  Not having enough launch acceleration to reach flying speed (by a long shot) means Langley also had no real understanding of freshman-level dynamics,  either.  The Wrights did understand all those things,  and that explains the two vastly-different outcomes well enough.

Langley had a well-known public reputation and presence,  which he parlayed into massive funding.  The Wrights did it economically,  staying fairly unknown. Langley acquiring and wasting other people's money reminds me very strongly of a lot of today's blowhards,  both individual and corporate.  The same scam still goes on,  most of the time at taxpayer expense. Our elections are completely corrupted by it. 

GW


GW Johnson
McGregor,  Texas

"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew,  especially one dead from a bad management decision"

Offline

#82 2015-12-14 16:20:56

Tom Kalbfus
Banned
Registered: 2006-08-16
Posts: 4,401

Re: Primary space politics

Well it looks like our old friend Ted Cruz got the better or Trump in the Iowa Poll, you remember they guy I mentioned who was in charge of the Senate subcommittee on Space Exploration? Who would you rather have? Trump or Cruz? As far as NASA is concerned, perhaps Cruz would be better. I heard Trump's preferences for building the nation's infrastructure first before doing anything like sending humans to Mars. Ted Cruz is a Texas man, a state with a lot to do with the space program, Trump on the other hand is from New York.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB